Note: Judgepedia will be read-only from 9pm CST on February 25-March 5 while Judgepedia is merged into Ballotpedia. Starting on March 5, all Judgepedia content will be contained on Ballotpedia.org. For status updates, visit lucyburns.org.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is the highest court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Formerly called the Superior Court of Judicature, the court has the distinction of being the oldest continuously functioning appellate court in the Western Hemisphere. The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 changed the name and established the current powers of the court. It is considered to be the oldest written constitution still currently in use.

Jurisdiction

According to the Massachusetts Constitution, "all causes of marriage, divorce, and alimony, and all appeals from the judges of probate shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision."[1]

Judicial selection

The Court consists of a Chief Justice and six Associate Justices. Each justice is appointed by the state Governor with the consent of the Governor's Council. Additionally, justices on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court hold tenure until the age of mandatory retirement, age 70.

Political outlook

In October 2012, political science professors Adam Bonica and Michael Woodruff of Stanford University attempted to determine the partisan outlook of state supreme court justices in their paper, State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns. A score above 0 indicated a more conservative leaning ideology while scores below 0 were more liberal. The state Supreme Court of Massachusetts was given a Campaign finance score (CFscore) which was calculated for judges in October 2012. At that time, Massachusetts received a score of -0.44. Based on the justices selected, Massachusetts was the 11th most liberal court. The study is based on data from campaign contributions by judges themselves, the partisan leaning of contributors to the judges or, in the absence of elections, the ideology of the appointing body (governor or legislature). This study is not a definitive label of a justice but rather, an academic gauge of various factors.[2]

Qualifications

Removal of justices

"Massachusetts judges may be removed in one of three ways: The commission on judicial conduct investigates complaints of judicial misconduct. Following a formal hearing, the commission may recommend to the supreme judicial court removal, retirement, or reprimand of a judge. The governor, with consent of the governor's council, may remove judges upon the joint address of both houses of the general court. The governor, with consent of the governor's council, may also retire judges because of advanced age or mental or physical disability. Judges may be impeached by the house of representatives and convicted by the senate."[3]

Caseloads

Notable decisions

• Court says photos secretly taken up a woman's skirt are legal

Click for summary→

The Massachusetts Supreme Court handed down a surprising ruling on March 5, 2014 that sent prosecutors on a mission to change a state law. The court ruled that the practice of secretly taking a photo or video up a person's clothing, which is known as "upskirting", is perfectly legal under state law.

The defendant in the case was Michael Robertson, who was arrested in 2010 for using his cell phone to take pictures and video up the skirts or dresses of female passengers on the public trolley. After the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) received multiple complaints about him, they caught him in the act by sending an undercover female officer onto the trolley. He was charged with two counts of attempting to secretly photograph a person in a state of partial nudity.

The supreme court's decision was based on the fact that a woman wearing a skirt or dress is not considered to be partially nude. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of Robertson and granted his request to dismiss the case. The ruling stated:

“

In sum, we interpret the phrase, 'a person who is ... partially nude' in the same way that the defendant does, namely, to mean a person who is partially clothed but who has one or more of the private parts of body exposed in plain view at the time that the putative defendant secretly photographs her.[5][6]

”

The court further explained that the state law "does not apply to photographing (or videotaping or electronically surveilling) persons who are fully clothed."[5]

Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel Conley responded to the ruling by saying, "Every person, male or female, has a right to privacy beneath his or her own clothing...If the statute as written doesn't protect that privacy, then I'm urging the Legislature to act rapidly and adjust it so it does."[5]

Legislative action:

One day after the court's ruling, the Massachusetts State Legislature approved a bill to close the loophole allowing such "upskirt" photographs. The new legislation, which Gov. Patrick agreed to sign into law, changes the wording of the old law to refer to any unsolicited photographs or videos of "sexual or other intimate parts" and strikes the requirement that the victim be "partially nude." The punishment for such acts is a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of two-and-a-half years in jail and a $5,000 fine.[7][8]

Historical decisions

Rex v. Preston (1770) - Captain Thomas Preston, the Officer of the Day during the Boston Massacre, was acquitted when the jury was unable to determine whether he had ordered the troops to fire. The defense counsel in the case was a young attorney named John Adams, later the second President of the United States.

Rex v. Wemms, et al. (1770) - Six soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre were found not guilty, and two more — the only two proven to have fired — were found guilty of manslaughter.

Commonwealth v. Jennison (1783) - The Court declared slavery unconstitutional in the state of Massachusetts by allowing slaves to sue their masters for freedom. Boston lawyer, and member of the Constitutional Convention of 1779, John Lowell, upon the adoption of Article I for inclusion in the Bill of Rights, exclaimed: "...I will render my services as a lawyer gratis to any slave suing for his freedom if it is withheld from him..."[9] With this case, he fulfilled his promise, and Slavery in Massachusetts no longer had any legal standing.

Commonwealth v. Hunt (1842) - The Court established that trade unions were not necessarily criminal or conspiring organizations if they did not advocate violence or illegal activities in their attempts to gain recognition through striking. This legalized the existence of non-socialist or non-violent trade organizations, though trade unions would continue to be harassed legally through anti-trust suits and injunctions.

Roberts v. Boston (1850) - The Court established the "separate but equal" doctrine that would later be used in Plessy v. Ferguson by maintaining that the law gave school boards complete authority in assigning students to schools and that they could do so along racial lines if they deemed it appropriate.

Ethics

Financial disclosure

In December 2013, the Center for Public Integrity released a study on disclosure requirements for state supreme court judges. Analysts from the Center reviewed the rules governing financial disclosure in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, as well as personal financial disclosures for the past three years. The study found that 42 states and Washington D.C. received failing grades. Massachusetts earned a grade of D in the study. No state received a grade higher than "C". Furthermore, due in part to these lax disclosure standards, the study found 35 instances of questionable gifts, investments overlapping with caseloads and similar potential ethical quandaries. The study also noted 14 cases in which justices participated although they or their spouses held stock in the company involved in the litigation.[10]

History of the court

The John Adams courthouse in Boston, Massachusetts

Historic Massachusetts State House (circa 1900), historic home of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Notable firsts

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has the distinction of being the oldest continuously functioning appellate court in the Western Hemisphere.